Despite what the article says, I don't feel wealthy.
Must be down to the fact that there are just more things to spend money on these days !
I don't know, what are your thoughts ?
http://www.smh.com.au/executive-styl...lds-wealthiest-20111101-1mt2r.html
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: Australians The World's Wealthiest
I think you are in a resource-rich country, with a relatively youthful, reasonably well-educated populace, a relatively homogeneous culture and stable government. It helps that you have a very large, shark-infested moat around you.
Add in that, in most respects, Australia is a great place to live.
Yeah, you're wealthy, in many ways that really matter.
I love my country, and especially my state, and if I were twenty years younger, I might be tempted to move to Australia (if you'd have me). Then, *I* could call Australia home. fact is, Australia is the closest that you can get to being in Texas, without being in Texas (and yes, that's a compliment).
Add in that, in most respects, Australia is a great place to live.
Yeah, you're wealthy, in many ways that really matter.
I love my country, and especially my state, and if I were twenty years younger, I might be tempted to move to Australia (if you'd have me). Then, *I* could call Australia home. fact is, Australia is the closest that you can get to being in Texas, without being in Texas (and yes, that's a compliment).
-
- janmnastami
- Posts: 379
- Joined:
RE: Australians The World's Wealthiest
You can read the databook here:
https://infocus.credit-suisse.com/data/_product_documents/_shop/324292/2011_global_wealth_report_databook.pdf
Country Wealth per capita (USD)
Australia 295,870
Belgium 213,142
France 222,446
Germany 163,262
Greece 85,622
Italy 210,565
Japan 204,538
UK 196,995
USA 181,083
https://infocus.credit-suisse.com/data/_product_documents/_shop/324292/2011_global_wealth_report_databook.pdf
Country Wealth per capita (USD)
Australia 295,870
Belgium 213,142
France 222,446
Germany 163,262
Greece 85,622
Italy 210,565
Japan 204,538
UK 196,995
USA 181,083
RE: Australians The World's Wealthiest
| Quoting sccutler (Reply 1): I think you are in a resource-rich country, with a relatively youthful, reasonably well-educated populace, a relatively homogeneous culture and stable government. It helps that you have a very large, shark-infested moat around you. |
Australia is a resource rich country, especially when you look a the number of people that wealth is spread over.
One of the factors in the individual Aussies wealth is related to those resources - the price of housing. Perth a month or o ago was more expensive to buy a house in than Sydney. All the explosions in mining, etc., has blown out the price of housing. Great if you are a home owner, but it is going to be brutal for younger people who will soon move into adulthood.
The population is reactively educated. They have excellent schools and understand the value of apprenticeship far more than we do.
Homogeneous culture before their white only immigration policy was abolished years ago. Australia is now as rich a melting pot as the US is, but there is, IMO, more tolerance of others. Reality is that their tolerance is probably one of the factors why they are wealthier as individuals that we are.
Government stability in Australia (except for Whitlam's last year) is more focused on their Westminster system that anything else. They have avoided the BS we have gone through with the GOP being the "Party of No". We have a financial disaster when we bring in a new president and the opposition blocks a huge amount of programs. The impotency of the House to do anything by bow to the Tea Party. You don't see that destructive mentality there.
| Quoting janmnastami (Reply 2): You can read the databook here: |
That is a pretty scary list. Look at all the "socialist" countries that do so much better than in the US!
| Quoting janmnastami (Reply 2): Country Wealth per capita (USD) Australia 295,870 Belgium 213,142 France 222,446 Germany 163,262 Greece 85,622 Italy 210,565 Japan 204,538 UK 196,995 USA 181,083 |
Hey, we ARE ahead of Greece.
-
- Springbok747
- Posts: 3993
- Joined:
RE: Australians The World's Wealthiest
| Quoting TheCommodore (Thread starter): Despite what the article says, I don't feel wealthy. |
Me neither. Must be something to do with the exorbitant cost of living in this country lately. Even McDonald's have raised their prices!
RE: Australians The World's Wealthiest
| Quoting TheCommodore (Thread starter): Despite what the article says, I don't feel wealthy. |
Just about no one will ever feel like they are wealthy, as wealth goes up, so will prices. Although we (I know I'm Norwegian, but seeing as I live in Australia, and have for my adult life, I will say we) might have more hard cash than the Americans, we also need a lot more of it to buy the same amount of goods.
You will feel that relative wealth when you are overseas, when your wealth buys a lot more than you would normally get back home (that is unless you go to an as wealthy or more wealthy place).
-CXfirst
RE: Australians The World's Wealthiest
| Quoting TheCommodore (Thread starter): Despite what the article says, I don't feel wealthy. |
Not surprising because mostly you are not.
| Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 4): Must be something to do with the exorbitant cost of living in this country lately. Even McDonald's have raised their prices! |
Not particularly.
Don't have the exact numbers but as given on the ABC (so it must be correct) of the last rise of ~18%, ~16% was due to the change in the value of the A$ and as most of us are living in Aus, no significant difference.
But if you take your $A10 overseas, then on average there is a big difference. But sitting here at home no, and mentioning your prices to overseas customers, quite the opposite of geting more wealthy!
Statistics stikes again I fear.
And yes, we are suffering a fairly severe case of Dutch disease.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/...517-GWTJN?opendocument&src=rss
The term was coined in 1977 by The Economist to describe the decline of the Netherland’s manufacturing sector after the discovery of a large natural gas field in 1959. But our version of the 'Dutch Disease' is even more serious because it may have infected the banking system.
So we have been Slochterened as it were as it was the discovery of Slochteren (aka Groningen) gas field wot did for Holland. (Gawd Dutch spelling will do for me yet!!) And the really big LNG projects have yet to start.
BTW, the Minerals tax was designed by Henry in large part to try to mitigate Dutch disease. The bastardised version now being bounced around will not be as effective as the original one, but it would help a little bit.
RE: Australians The World's Wealthiest
| Quoting CXfirst (Reply 5): You will feel that relative wealth when you are overseas, when your wealth buys a lot more than you would normally get back home (that is unless you go to an as wealthy or more wealthy place). |
This is arguably one of the reasons why a lot of people choose to retire in developing countries: they can expect to get more out of their pension dollars/euros/pounds/etc. than they would if they stayed in their home country.
While on the subject, I believe that while earning more in a foreign country is a good thing, it does come with its risks: for example, we send lots of people abroad every year, all at the expense of broken families, some where children will not see their parents for years at a time. Chasing greener pastures is not necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good thing either.
RE: Australians The World's Wealthiest
Just curious about the situation in Luxembourg, a country which stands head and shoulders above the rest in terms of GDP/capita, a whopping $120.000, according to the Credit Suisse document in the link.
I assume that salaries there are easily twice that of the its 'poor'
neighbours Germany,France, and Belgium? Does that also mean that the situation in this country is similar to Singapore/Malaysia where there's a large amount of job related cross-border commuting?
How can such situation sustain within the no-borders EU? I mean who wants to accept a local job when a few km you can get double the pay hassle free.
I assume that salaries there are easily twice that of the its 'poor'
neighbours Germany,France, and Belgium? Does that also mean that the situation in this country is similar to Singapore/Malaysia where there's a large amount of job related cross-border commuting?
How can such situation sustain within the no-borders EU? I mean who wants to accept a local job when a few km you can get double the pay hassle free.
RE: Australians The World's Wealthiest
This is in USD, so the high exchange rate makes the figure much higher than otherwise. The main reason for AUS is simple; a huge housing bubble where housing prices have exploded. Adjust for purchasing power, and the Australian figure drops 30%, and more than 50% for Switz.
People have to remember that in most countries, most wealth is in the form of the house that you own. Hence, it's definitely possible to have a lot of wealth, while being cash poor, and thus not "feeling" rich, and vice versa.
Misleading, because this is not adjusting for purchasing power + the US figure does not include pension assets like the other ones do + the US figure is lower than the figure from the Survey of Consumer Finances, by the Fed (closer to $220,000).
Here's what we get when we correct for these factors, and simply add liquid assets (not including pension assets) and nonfinancial assets (namely real property):
($, 000, PPP, MEAN, per adult)
UK: 193
IT: 170
SP :113
SWZ: 211
US: 286
($, 000, PPP, MEDIAN, per adult )
UK: 80
FR: 67
IT: 87
DK: 49
GER: 60
BEL: 74
NL: 75
SP: 88
SWTZ: 56
FIN: 105
US: 107
Amazing how different the figures are with just a bit of additional research. In any case, as we can see above, wealth is is a bad indicator of income. Afterall, how is Switzerland is half that of Finland, when the former has higher income levels? Why is Denmark so low? Well, for w/e reason it just is.
Wealth= sum of all savings/investment plus unrealized capital gains
People have to remember that in most countries, most wealth is in the form of the house that you own. Hence, it's definitely possible to have a lot of wealth, while being cash poor, and thus not "feeling" rich, and vice versa.
| Quoting janmnastami (Reply 2): Country Wealth per capita (USD) Australia 295,870 Belgium 213,142 France 222,446 Germany 163,262 Greece 85,622 Italy 210,565 Japan 204,538 UK 196,995 USA 181,083 |
Misleading, because this is not adjusting for purchasing power + the US figure does not include pension assets like the other ones do + the US figure is lower than the figure from the Survey of Consumer Finances, by the Fed (closer to $220,000).
Here's what we get when we correct for these factors, and simply add liquid assets (not including pension assets) and nonfinancial assets (namely real property):
($, 000, PPP, MEAN, per adult)
UK: 193
IT: 170
SP :113
SWZ: 211
US: 286
($, 000, PPP, MEDIAN, per adult )
UK: 80
FR: 67
IT: 87
DK: 49
GER: 60
BEL: 74
NL: 75
SP: 88
SWTZ: 56
FIN: 105
US: 107
Amazing how different the figures are with just a bit of additional research. In any case, as we can see above, wealth is is a bad indicator of income. Afterall, how is Switzerland is half that of Finland, when the former has higher income levels? Why is Denmark so low? Well, for w/e reason it just is.
Wealth= sum of all savings/investment plus unrealized capital gains
RE: Australians The World's Wealthiest
In 2010, gross mean wealth per adult in Australia was $506,000
BUT:
-conversion to purchasing power rates
-substract pensions assets
=$238,000.
This is still high, but no longer highest in world.
I subtract pensions because it's not an asset one can use for spending until you get it in the form of a pension plus because it's not included in US figure.
In 2011, gross median wealth per adult in Australia was $300,000
-conversion to purchasing power rates
-substract pensions assets
= $150,000. This would still make it the highest in the world. The reason is due to very high home values. If we look at liquid assets, however, which is more relevant to how rich people feel, it's $22,000, which is about avg compared to most other nations.
[Edited 2011-11-01 15:59:41]
BUT:
-conversion to purchasing power rates
-substract pensions assets
=$238,000.
This is still high, but no longer highest in world.
I subtract pensions because it's not an asset one can use for spending until you get it in the form of a pension plus because it's not included in US figure.
In 2011, gross median wealth per adult in Australia was $300,000
-conversion to purchasing power rates
-substract pensions assets
= $150,000. This would still make it the highest in the world. The reason is due to very high home values. If we look at liquid assets, however, which is more relevant to how rich people feel, it's $22,000, which is about avg compared to most other nations.
[Edited 2011-11-01 15:59:41]
-
- Kent350787
- Posts: 2419
- Joined:
RE: Australians The World's Wealthiest
| Quoting Akiestar (Reply 7): This is arguably one of the reasons why a lot of people choose to retire in developing countries: |
Many Australians retire to New Zealand
By pretty much every indicator, Australia is at a historical high point, yet the policies an utterences of the Howard Government in particular developed a culture of dissatisfaction. As to not having the GOP's "No", we have "Dr No" Abbot as opposition leader, but luckily a government which, with the support of minor parties and independents, can manage a majority in both houses.
It's not that we can't improve culturally and socially, and ensure that more people are able to share in the wealth flowing to the nation. We are at a point where the nation has "never had it so good", and should at least be somewhat satisfied.
RE: Australians The World's Wealthiest
| Quoting zhiao (Reply 11): -conversion to purchasing power rates -substract pensions assets |
Why not subtract a bit more because we have a national health system and the US does not, so we should not benefit from that?
Then there are lower average heating and cooling costs, best get rid of them. Subtract the higher fuel taxes too. And you need to normalize the data for the larger houses in Australia, it should be on a standard house size.
Your work is only half done.
RE: Australians The World's Wealthiest
| Quoting Baroque (Reply 13): Why not subtract a bit more because we have a national health system and the US does not, so we should not benefit from that? Then there are lower average heating and cooling costs, best get rid of them. Subtract the higher fuel taxes too. And you need to normalize the data for the larger houses in Australia, it should be on a standard house size. |
We are dealing with wealth, not income. Such factors have nothing to do with wealth. National health system is certainly not an asset that can be converted to cash, so it would make no sense to include it. Pension assets were subtracted because they cannot be used to buy goods and services, until the pension is disbursed (then its included as income). Also, it's not included in US data, so it's also done for comparability purposes. Consumption expenditures on utilities could be subtracted from income, but again, has no relation with wealth. If anything, wealth would REFLECT such expenditures, because all things equal, wealth will be lower by the same amount than it otherwise would be but for the higher exp. So expenses on healthcare and utilities is already reflected in liquid assets.
And as you said in the beginning, much of the high wealth is simply due to an overvalued currency, which is why I also corrected for that using PPPs.
[Edited 2011-11-02 08:11:17]
RE: Australians The World's Wealthiest
| Quoting zhiao (Reply 14): Pension assets were subtracted because they cannot be used to buy goods and services, until the pension is disbursed (then its included as income). |
Actually NO and NO, this is just one reason why trying corrections is not really a great idea.
And if trying purchasing power, how ever do you correct for different building sizes and building standards.
The stats are pretty useless, but WADR earnest though your aims may be, making corrections is just making them more useless. And PPPs depend entirely on what you are trying to buy and where. No way is the cost of living in say Sydney (high), comparable with that in Lithgow (low, old mining town) or Muswellbrook (mining town with new mines) Dubbo country town, or Orange (country town with new mines).
You do know about the statistician who drowned crossing a river with an average depth of 2 inches???
RE: Australians The World's Wealthiest
Mean liquid assets (cash, equities) ($, 000, PPP, MEAN, per adult)
UK: $40.3
IT: $52.34
SP: $50.8
SWZ: $97
US: $168.48
AUS: $38.29
US*: $205
*SCF data
Mean nonfinancial assets (basically real property) ($, 000, PPP, MEAN, per adult)
UK: $136.44
IT: $148.83
SP: $90.37
SWZ: $134
US: $98.63
AUS: $206
US*: $99
----------
Thus, Australia is in the top 5 just because of a housing bubble. Looking at liquid assets, and it's below avg. Notice how much higher it's mean value is vs everyone else. Someone mentioned housing size. Avg Housing size of existing is even bigger in the US, and yet housing prices are MUCH more affordable. The only way to possibly gain from this situation (before the crash) is to make a huge capital gain on the sale of a home. Of course, 98% of people don't sale their homes every year, so basically it's illusory.
UK: $40.3
IT: $52.34
SP: $50.8
SWZ: $97
US: $168.48
AUS: $38.29
US*: $205
*SCF data
Mean nonfinancial assets (basically real property) ($, 000, PPP, MEAN, per adult)
UK: $136.44
IT: $148.83
SP: $90.37
SWZ: $134
US: $98.63
AUS: $206
US*: $99
----------
Thus, Australia is in the top 5 just because of a housing bubble. Looking at liquid assets, and it's below avg. Notice how much higher it's mean value is vs everyone else. Someone mentioned housing size. Avg Housing size of existing is even bigger in the US, and yet housing prices are MUCH more affordable. The only way to possibly gain from this situation (before the crash) is to make a huge capital gain on the sale of a home. Of course, 98% of people don't sale their homes every year, so basically it's illusory.
RE: Australians The World's Wealthiest
| Quoting Baroque (Reply 15): Actually NO and NO, this is just one reason why trying corrections is not really a great idea. And if trying purchasing power, how ever do you correct for different building sizes and building standards. The stats are pretty useless, but WADR earnest though your aims may be, making corrections is just making them more useless. And PPPs depend entirely on what you are trying to buy and where. No way is the cost of living in say Sydney (high), comparable with that in Lithgow (low, old mining town) or Muswellbrook (mining town with new mines) Dubbo country town, or Orange (country town with new mines). You do know about the statistician who drowned crossing a river with an average depth of 2 inches??? |
1. It is a good idea, when trying to make things comparable from a wealth perspective. Pension assets are not in US data, so I took them out for the other countries. Also, most surveys don't include such as wealth, which I agree with, given that it cannot be used for consumption, and will already be included as income when received. Including pension assets means double counting; including it once when held on behalf of household, then again when retained as income. When a pension is received and saved, it will be included in liquid assets.
2. Yes, purchasing power is calculating within the index, regarding homes, as per square meter. Read the OECD methodoogy. The US and AUS have basically the same home sizes anyway.
3. You are right, PPPs are based on a national avg, and it was always intended as such.
